The Times’ exclusive says that Perlmutter “inserted a provision into the recently passed House climate change bill that would drum up business of ‘green’ banks, such as the one he has invested in and his family and a political donor helped found.”

Saying the Times has “a bias,” spokeswoman Leslie Oliver claimed, “There’s just no there there.”

She says that the bill, which has its origins in legislation Perlmutter co-sponsored last year, allows all banks access to new rules that would promote green banking and allow for federal agencies like Freddie and Fannie to back energy-efficient home-improvement mortgages for lower income and other potential buyers.

She says the bill doesn’t “drum up business of ‘green’ banks.”

Perlmutter has invested in New Resource Bank, which the Times’ piece says promotes itself as “the nation’s first green bank.”

I’m somewhat sympathetic to Perlmutter on the Times’ article, but I don’t buy all of Oliver’s argument.

The Times reporter, Kara Rowland, wrote in the fourth graph of the exclusive, “A Perlmutter spokeswoman stressed that the bill provisions benefit any bank that offers qualifying products.”

Rowland also details the bill’s year-long history as it made its way into those now-famous 300 pages that were slipped into the climate bill in the dark of night on the day of the vote.

That’s important, because the fact suggests that representatives should have at least already been more than familiar with the green-banking provisions.

Rowland is correct to assert that New Resource Bank would benefit from the new regulations, even if it has to compete with other banks to do so.

Oliver is right to question just how serious a matter this is. Rowland’s lede, or opening paragraph, does make Perlmutter sound awfully sneaky, and the facts of the matter are far more nuanced.

But no matter when the bill is introduced, if you’re supporting green banking and help craft rules that empower it, your investment in that green bank you made is going to have a much better chance of paying dividends.

What we’ve got here is a perception problem. If Perlmutter wants to advance a green banking rule change, he ought to consider divesting his green-banking portfolio.

From Wikipedia; RE: WASHINTON TIMES
Both liberals and conservatives often refer to the Times as politically conservative.[17][18] Critics have cited it along with, among others, the Wall Street Journal, the Fox News Channel and talk radio, as epitomizing conservative media bias.[7][19][20][21] Salon.com[22][23] and the The Daily Howler[24][25][26][27] have published analyses of what they believe are serious factual errors and examples of bias in the paper’s news coverage.

Conservative-turned-liberal writer David Brock, who worked for the Times’ sister publication Insight on the News, said in his book Blinded by the Right that the news writers at the Times were encouraged and rewarded for giving news stories a conservative slant. In Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy, Brock wrote “the Washington Times was governed by a calculatedly unfair political bias and that its journalistic ethics were close to nil.”[28]

According to the Columbia Journalism Review, “Because of its history of a seemingly ideological approach to the news, the paper has always faced questions about its credibility.

JUST ANOTHER PART OF THE CONSERVATIVE NOISE MACHINE

Doug Hubka

From Wikipedia; RE: WASHINTON TIMES
Both liberals and conservatives often refer to the Times as politically conservative.[17][18] Critics have cited it along with, among others, the Wall Street Journal, the Fox News Channel and talk radio, as epitomizing conservative media bias.[7][19][20][21] Salon.com[22][23] and the The Daily Howler[24][25][26][27] have published analyses of what they believe are serious factual errors and examples of bias in the paper’s news coverage.

Conservative-turned-liberal writer David Brock, who worked for the Times’ sister publication Insight on the News, said in his book Blinded by the Right that the news writers at the Times were encouraged and rewarded for giving news stories a conservative slant. In Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy, Brock wrote “the Washington Times was governed by a calculatedly unfair political bias and that its journalistic ethics were close to nil.”[28]

According to the Columbia Journalism Review, “Because of its history of a seemingly ideological approach to the news, the paper has always faced questions about its credibility.

Hubka defeats his own goal. The comment about Washington Time’s credibility comes from Columbia University Journalism Department. That school has invited terrorists to speak and has a reputation of suppressing conservative speech. Because it is a private school, free speech limitations are constitutional.

Instead of answering the implied question of why the provision was slipped into the bill without debate, Permuter is complaining that his critics disagree with him.

yaakov Watkins

Hubka defeats his own goal. The comment about Washington Time’s credibility comes from Columbia University Journalism Department. That school has invited terrorists to speak and has a reputation of suppressing conservative speech. Because it is a private school, free speech limitations are constitutional.

Instead of answering the implied question of why the provision was slipped into the bill without debate, Permuter is complaining that his critics disagree with him.

Lynn Bartels thinks politics is like sports but without the big salaries and protective cups. The Washington Post's "The Fix" blog has named her one of Colorado's best political reporters and tweeters.

Joey Bunch has been a reporter for 28 years, including the last 12 at The Denver Post. For various newspapers he has covered the environment, water issues, politics, civil rights, sports and the casino industry.